User talk:Ask123
Welcome! Hi, welcome to Wiki 24! Thanks for your edit to the Wiki 24 talk:Manual of Style page. If the links above do not provide the answer to any of your questions, please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SignorSimon (Talk) 22:38, 17 May 2009 :Thanks for the welcome. I am familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, as I've been an regularly active Wikipedia editor for many years. I recently started watching 24 and am quite interested in it. So I thought I'd make some constructive changes to different articles here. I am very interested in grammar, structure and style so that will be one area you may see me editing frequently. Ask123 04:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Day Zero : Please note that your removal of references to 24: Day Zero had to be reverted, because that is the official name of the content. We did not fabricate that name and as such we cannot change it. I understand you may feel it sounds silly, but hey, look at the "Zeroth law of thermodynamics". Even physicists and scientists retrospectively use zero as a label! 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::No, don't twist my argument. Of course, in math and science, the term, "zero," has a meaning. However, you are twisting the meaning here. The "Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics" is called "Zeroth" because the man who coined the name, Ralph Fowler," believed it was a more important law than the other three that had already been discovered. Beyond this difference, you are also wrongly interchanging the use of the word "zero" in math theory and the use of the word "zero" in physics and relating to real things. In the physical sciences, one does not use zero when referring to things that exist. In physics (the discipline to which you refer), "zero" denotes nothingness or space void of anything. In mathematics, "zero" is the number that comes directly before 1 in the set of integers. But this is in theoretical math only. Theoretical math deals with numbers as if they don't refer to real things. It deals with them purely as sequences of values. So you see, I am familiar with math and the sciences and the nomenclature used in their practice. ::If you look at the use of "zero" in this case, you will see that the term refers to a real day, to a real moment in time. In physics and cosmology, "Day Zero" refers to the moment before the big bang took place. The moment at which T=0 isn't a moment at all. If you acknowledge days before Day 1, then Day 1 is actually Day 2 or 3, etc. ::However, if this is the official name used in the chronology, as you say it is, then it is perfectly acceptable on a grammatical level to refer "Day Zero." If this is the case, then "Day Zero" is an official title used in material from Fox and relating to 24. But, still, this would also mean that the creators chose a title that was incorrect according to the definition. Ask123 02:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::: What's the point? That's the name the creators gave to the series, so what's to argue? Besides, artists and writers have artistic license in their works regardless of the "real meaning" of a word. Thief12 04:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :: You don't know that in the 24-verse that the same rules apply to our world. There have been several contradictions noted, and maybe the meaning of the world "zero" in a physical sense is different that what it means for us. Anyway, strangely, as you seem to acknowledge yourself your whole argument is void because it WAS titled like that by FOX, not something we just made up. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 07:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::::For Christ's sake, I'm saying that I understand that the creators' have artistic license. I didn't know they coined the term "Day Zero." If I had, I would have left the section title alone. But I didn't know that. And, given the fact that Wikia is user edited, I assumed it was a mistake. After all, in all other contexts, it would have been a mistake. My last post was simply explaining why I made the edit -- I didn't know they coined the term -- and responding to the argument about physics made by Blue Rook. I don't see what's so strange about that, SignorSimon. I've been swarmed by antagonistic comments about my edit. I am entitled to explain myself. So please, all of you, stop being combative. Ask123 22:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::I don't think anyone is being combative or antagonistic. At least I'm not. Just asking and wondering about the nature of the edit. Thief12 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :::No, you're not. I'm sorry -- I wasn't referring to your comment. Ask123 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::: Apologies if my explanation for the revert sounded combative to ya. All I was getting at was that "zero" is used as a label elsewhere. I wasn't twisting your argument (since I didn't know there was an argument). I'm glad at least everyone agrees that the definition of the term as found in one or another discipline does not apply here. Also, if two explanatory posts (one from me and one from Simon) are deemed a 'swarm' of "antagonistic" and "combative" comments, you may not like it here since we readily debate things (I've always considered discussion and rebuttals to be the "fuel" that keeps this community going). 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) : Ditto. Everyone knows how much I love me a good debate! --proudhug 01:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)